- From: Willy Tarreau <w@1wt.eu>
- Date: Thu, 1 Feb 2018 07:32:00 +0100
- To: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>
- Cc: HTTP Working Group <ietf-http-wg@w3.org>, Vasiliy Faronov <vfaronov@gmail.com>
On Thu, Feb 01, 2018 at 12:43:53PM +1100, Martin Thomson wrote: > The observation is correct. However, I'm not sure that this is the > solution I would choose. I'm not sure, but I think that an empty > header field would cause problems. Some intermediaries risk to drop it, considering that empty is equivalent to absent. > Maybe the right conclusion to draw > here is that you have to include at least one setting if you use this > header field. I just tried to see if "====" would be possible as an encoding for an empty string, but at least the base64 utility I have here considers that it's an invalid input, so I suspect that it's not widely accepted to have an end tag at the beginning of a base64 string. Thus most likely as you suggest, something needs to be sent. Maybe we should recommend to pass one of the default settings in this case. Willy
Received on Thursday, 1 February 2018 06:32:26 UTC